Under a DACA amnesty, American taxpayers would be left with a $26 billion bill. About one in five DACA illegal aliens, after an amnesty, would end up on food stamps, while at least one in seven would go on Medicaid. Since DACA’s inception under Obama, more than 2,100 illegal aliens have been kicked off the program after it was revealed that they were either criminals or gang members. JOHN BINDER

Saturday, June 13, 2015

Sen. Bernie Sanders - America's Only Answer to Obamanomics, Wall Street Banksters' Looting and the War on the American Middle-Class

JOINING HILLARIA CLINTON and JEBO BUSH
fighting for illegals!

Sen. Bernie Sanders finally comes out of the
LA RAZA SUPREMAMCY closet and goes hispandering for the ILLEGALS’ VOTES.

"At
this point, Clinton is the choice of most multimillionaires to be the next
occupant of the White House. A recent CNBC poll of 750 millionaires found 53
percent support for Clinton in a contest with Republican Jeb Bush, 14 points
better than Obama’s showing in the 2012 election with the same group."

PATRICK BUCHANAN

After Obama has completely destroyed the American economy, handed millions of jobs to illegals and billions of dollars in welfare to illegals…. BUT WHAT COMES NEXT?

“Calling income and wealth inequality the "great moral
issue of our time," Sanders laid out a sweeping, almost unimaginably
expensive program to transfer wealth from the richest Americans to the poor and
middle class. A $1 trillion public works program to create "13 million
good-paying jobs." A $15-an-hour federal minimum wage. "Pay
equity" for women. Paid sick leave and vacation for everyone. Higher taxes
on the wealthy. Free tuition at all public colleges and universities. A
Medicare-for-all single-payer health care system. Expanded Social Security
benefits. Universal pre-K.” WASHINGTON
EXAMINER

A candidate who was one of the thousands of Americans who marched with Martin
Luther King, Jr. in his historic March on Washington in 1963. A
candidate who has served as a mayor (being one of the earliest proponents
of a lot of the policies that are nowadays commonplace in municipal
government), a congressman and a senator, with deep knowledge of the American
political system and equally deep, authentic convictions that he has held onto
for his entire political career.

There is also only one candidate who so far has been either ignored or
ridiculed by the massive majority of the American media during his entire
campaign. A candidate whose campaign kickoff had the most attendees of that of
any candidate so far, and yet was mostly ignored by most media outlets, or
relegated to a side-note about a general story on the race, while candidates
like ex-Governor and current-who-are-you-supposed-to-be George Pataki got major
coverage.

A candidate whose disproportionately tiny actual coverage includes headlines
such as "Bernie Sanders for President? Why Not?" and flattering subtitles like
"Why Sanders draws the crowds, excites the base, polls relatively well --
and still won't make much of an impact in 2016."

That candidate's name is Bernie Sanders, and he could, and should, be the
45th President of the United States of America.

Sanders at a packed town hall meeting in
Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

Saying what I've just said shouldn't be a controversial thing. If anything,
it's by all means a perfectly sound thing to say when writing about a political
candidate.

So, I will now address the groups of people that somehow remarkably make
saying "this old white heterosexual American man whose platform is
entirely in touch with most of mainstream American politics should be
President" a weird, taboo thing to say.

First off, the general news media. Apart from what I said above, there is
really something genuinely worrying about the concept of a news media largely
owned by millionaires (and in some cases billionaires) who employ millionaire
anchors and writers shunning the one candidate in favor of major redistribution
of wealth away from America's top earners and into the middle class.

The media can make or break a candidate, and, unlike ever before, the
current 2016 presidential race coverage seems determined to break Bernie
Sanders, with some exceptions currently applying the ol' "oh would you
look at that he's actually doing well maybe we should stop blatantly dismissing
his campaign" approach to reporting. Looking at you, New York Times.

This is not a matter of bias. It is a matter of math.

Sanders is polling better
among the Democratic primary electorate than any candidate in the Republican
electorate. That is a fact. He is drawing larger crowds than any other
candidate in Iowa. Also a fact.

Hillary Clinton only beat him by 8 points in
a recent Wisconsin Democratic Party straw poll. Fact.

His positions are not far-left or fringe; by the mere definitions of those
terms, they cannot be if they are accepted by a majority of the American
people. Fact.

So, why is the media ignoring and/or acting like a gang of grade school
bullies about Bernie's campaign?

Don't make it about socialism either, now. FDR and Martin Luther King, Jr.
both got called socialists in their day, so good luck arguing that it's a step
in the wrong direction, Sanders just happens to use the label. A majority of
Americans don't identify as libertarians, but the media is not treating Rand
Paul like a fringe candidate. A majority of Americans don't identify as
sympathizers of the Tea Party, but the media is not treating Ted Cruz like a
fringe candidate. Also, one quick thing, he's a democratic socialist.
There's a difference. One word. An entire word that references a completely
different set of policies, a different set of foreign examples.

Granted, the U.S. has had a major issue with communism in the past century,
and communists tends to associate themselves with socialism, and some people
argue that it's difficult to get Americans to even understand the difference
between the two. But it is no -- actually, no, wait, let me just say this next
bit with the fancy bold font:

It is not the media's job to decide what the American people can and cannot
hear. That is dishonesty, that is lying. It is the media's job to keep the
American people informed. That's what it's there for, and doing anything else
is simply abusing the trust millions and millions of Americans have for the
current news media system.

Speaking of the American public, I'd like to speak directly with everyone
who is hesitant to support Bernie Sanders. Statistically, reader, that's
probably you. If you're scared of a vote for Bernie being a vote thrown away,
firstly, we're only talking about primaries as of right now, losing the race
doesn't put anybody in office or screw anybody over, it just means somebody
else gets the Democratic candidacy. That's it. Vote for the candidate you believe
in, period. If you're disillusioned with the voting process as a whole, stand
up, get yourself together, take some time out of your day and go vote for
Bernie in your state primary (you might want to find
out when your state primary is, first). That sort of lazy,
voting-won't-work attitude is exactly what those who rig the process want the
American public to fall into so as to make pushing their horrible agendas
easier.

If you don't like Hillary Clinton but think she has a better shot at
winning the Oval Office, then help make that not be the case anymore. Go out.
Vote. Promote Bernie (or O'Malley, if you're weird that way). Share this article.
Write one yourself. Donate, if you can, even the smallest amount counts.
Volunteer. Yes, the system is rigged, no doubt about it, but taking actual,
concrete action for candidates like Bernie is the only way to actually fix it.

No candidate is ever inevitable and no candidate is ever doomed -- that is
not how democracy works. A society that continually wishes to achieve political
change in the most passive way possible is not a society that will ever achieve
political change. A candidate is only inevitable or doomed if the voting public
decides that to be the case.

Not pictured, contrary to popular belief:
the entire American electorate.

But that's a general point, back to Bernie. "But, you may be asking
yourself, what about [insert candidate here]? I think [insert candidate here]
is by far a better choice than Sanders for the White House." Obviously, I
may not know what a "candidate turn-off" might be for you, reader,
but I can certainly think of a few for every other 2016 candidate.

George Pataki
vetoed raising the minimum wage in New York, despite the support of the state's
population and both houses of the legislature. Rick Santorum
equated same-sex marriage to "polygamy and incest" and abortion to
slavery. Martin O'Malley's
policies as mayor of Baltimore and Governor of Maryland helped create the very
same police system that allowed for the 2015 riots in Baltimore over the death
of Freddie Gray. Ben Carson
has compared the Obama administration to both Nazi Germany and the United
States back when slavery was legal. Lincoln Chafee
"endorsed the bankruptcy reforms that allow banks to pursue debtors
through the process and restrict consumer use of bankruptcy as a protection,
[...] supported partial privatization of Social Security and voted for the USA
Patriot Act." Marco Rubio
is on the Koch Brothers' payroll, and is therefore all for gutting horrible,
horrible programs like Social Security and the Pell Grant. Chris Christie
pulled stunts with Exxon Mobil that positively reek of corruption. Ted Cruz
joked about beating his wife at a campaign event. Rand Paul... Actually, no, I
will get to you later, Rand.

And, last but most certainly not least, Hillary Clinton. The only
"grassroots campaign" that has mounted campaign operations in all 50 states,
uses the word "grassroots" so much it'll make your head spin, and
runs a grotesquely overproduced Twitter feed.
It's not that Hillary Clinton's turn towards progressive policies is at all
bad, it's just that, well, if Bernie and his policies are juice, she's that
weird, Dasani flavored water. She's the anti-hipster, admitting she's a fan
once the band gets popular. It's not that most liberals (in fact, probably most
Americans) wouldn't happily vote for Hillary Clinton in a presidential
election, it's that she simply does not represent the values that she is now
presenting. Her money is just not where her mouth is. Being a supporter of
hers, it does pain me to say it. But come on.

She makes more off of a single speaking gig
than most Americans do in an entire year, and yet claims to be a champion for a
middle-class she cannot even pretend to truly understand. She wants to help get big money out
of politics, and yet her campaign counts on a big fat Super PAC that
hopes to raise $2 billion dollars, more than any candidate has ever raised, in
history, in any nation, period. Heck, her list of Senate campaign
contributors looks like a Wikipedia list of Wall Street banks and
health care giants. Her local campaign "roundtable
discussions" are made up of vetted, handpicked people from the
communities she visits, with not a dissenting voice in sight. She is pro-surveillance
in the name of safety, the majority of Americans aren't. She is considered untrustworthy by a
majority of Americans. Do not be afraid to say Hillary Clinton is
not the candidate for you because you don't want a Republican in the White
House. Hillary Clinton is not the only option.

Is it the money? I don't know if you know this, but money does not decide
if a campaign is credible or not, the people do, in a process called voting.
Not to mention that the crowds he has received in Iowa show just how credible
his campaign already is in the eyes of the people. And for a primary candidate,
especially one that refuses to have anything to do with billionaires or PAC's,
the Sanders campaign has raised a remarkable amount of money and volunteers.

Is it the fact that he's never been a Democrat or a Republican? Because,
well... I don't know if you've realized this, but Carly Fiorina, Donald Trump
and Ben Carson have never held elected office for a political party. At all.

Is it his looks? Because, I'll have you know, Vermont's beloved democratic
socialist son didn't look half bad in his younger days.

Ladies.

In all seriousness, Bernie is by all means a candidate that is not to be
taken lightly, a by-the-numbers major player in the race to be the next
president of the richest, most powerful country in human history. He is a
candidate with firm values, authentic determination and a thorough set of
solutions to the problems facing America today. And it is about time we started
treating him that way.

These are only the most striking of a barrage of numbers reported in
recent weeks, demonstrating that for the US financial aristocracy, the Crash of
2008 has been used to engineer a historic redistribution of wealth.

OBAMAnomics at
work: How Barack Obama looted America for his Wall Street paymasters:

In
all, the research team behind the Forbes Billionaires list found a total of
1,645 billionaires worldwide as of February 12, with a combined net worth of
$6.4 trillion, an increase of $1 trillion from 2013. The number of new
billionaires, at 268, was the highest figure in the report’s history.

"Notwithstanding these powerful trends, the stock
markets continue to power on, providing a graphic demonstration of the degree
to which the accumulation of wealth by global financial elites has become
divorced from the actual process of production."

Wall Street profits and the widening social divide in America

The profits of the biggest US banks continued to swell in the second quarter
of this year, even as the impact of five years of mass unemployment, stagnant
economic growth and brutal cuts in social spending produced a further rise in
poverty, homelessness and hunger.

Obama’s “recovery” and the social crisis in America … the recovery that
NEVER was!

In the aftermath of
the 2008 financial crisis, on the other hand, none of the basic causes of the
crash, including the ENORMOUS SIZE OF THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL SECTOR AND ITS
PERVASIVE CRIMINALITY, have been even remotely addressed. Rather, under the
guidance of the Obama administration, the dominant position of Wall Street in
economic, social and political life has only been entrenched and expanded.

OBAMA-CLINTONomics:
the never end war on

the American middle-class. But we still get the tax

bills
for the looting of their Wall Street cronies

and their bailouts and billions
for Mexico’s

welfare state in our borders.

While the wealth of
the rich is growing at a breakneck pace, there is a stratification of growth
within the super wealthy, skewed towards the very top.

In 2014, those with over $100 million in private wealth saw
their wealth increase 11 percent in one year alone. Collectively, these
households owned $10 trillion in 2014, 6 percent of the world’s private wealth.
According to the report, “This top segment is expected to be the fastest
growing, in both the number of households and total wealth.” They are expected
to see 12 percent compound growth on their wealth in the next five years.

In 2014 the
Russell Sage Foundation found that between 2003 and 2013, the median household
net worth of those in the United States fell from $87,992 to $56,335—a drop of
36 percent. While the rich also saw their wealth drop during the recession,
they are more than making that money back. Between 2009 and 2012, 95 percent of
all the income gains in the US went to the top 1 percent. This is the most
distorted post-recession income gain on record.

OBAMANOMICS: IS IT WORKING???

Millionaires projected to own 46 percent of global private wealth by 2019

By Gabriel Black 18 June 2015

Households with more than a million (US) dollars in private wealth are projected to own 46 percent of global private wealth in 2019 according to a new report by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG).
This large percentage, however, only includes cash, savings, money market funds and listed securities held through managed investments—collectively known as “private wealth.” It leaves out businesses, residences and luxury goods, which comprise a substantial portion of the rich’s net worth.

At the end of 2014, millionaire households owned about 41 percent of global private wealth, according to BCG. This means that collectively these 17 million households owned roughly $67.24 trillion in liquid assets, or about $4 million per household.

In total, the world added $17.5 trillion of new private wealth between 2013 and 2014. The report notes that nearly three quarters of all these gains came from previously existing wealth. In other words, the vast majority of money gained has been due to pre-existing assets increasing in value—not the creation of new material things.

This trend is the result of the massive infusions of cheap credit into the financial markets by central banks. The policy of “quantitative easing” has led to a dramatic expansion of the stock market even while global economic growth has slumped.

While the wealth of the rich is growing at a breakneck pace, there is a stratification of growth within the super wealthy, skewed towards the very top.

In 2014, those with over $100 million in private wealth saw their wealth increase 11 percent in one year alone. Collectively, these households owned $10 trillion in 2014, 6 percent of the world’s private wealth. According to the report, “This top segment is expected to be the fastest growing, in both the number of households and total wealth.” They are expected to see 12 percent compound growth on their wealth in the next five years.

Those families with wealth between $20 and $100 million also rose substantially in 2014—seeing a 34 percent increase in their wealth in twelve short months. They now own $9 trillion. In five years they will surpass $14 trillion according to the report.

Coming in last in the “high net worth” population are those with between $1 million and $20 million in private wealth. These households are expected to see their wealth grow by 7.2 percent each year, going from $49 trillion to $70.1 trillion dollars, several percentage points below the highest bracket’s 12 percent growth rate.

The gains in private wealth of the ultra-rich stand in sharp contrast to the experience of billions of people around the globe. While wealth accumulation has sharply sped up for the ultra-wealthy, the vast majority of people have not even begun to recover from the past recession.

An Oxfam report from January, for example, shows that the bottom 99 percent of the world’s population went from having about 56 percent of the world’s wealth in 2010 to having 52 percent of it in 2014. Meanwhile the top 1 percent saw its wealth rise from 44 to 48 percent of the world’s wealth.

In 2014 the Russell Sage Foundation found that between 2003 and 2013, the median household net worth of those in the United States fell from $87,992 to $56,335—a drop of 36 percent. While the rich also saw their wealth drop during the recession, they are more than making that money back. Between 2009 and 2012, 95 percent of all the income gains in the US went to the top 1 percent. This is the most distorted post-recession income gain on record.

As the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has noted, in the United States “between 2007 and 2013, net wealth fell on average 2.3 percent, but it fell ten-times more (26 percent) for those at the bottom 20 percent of the distribution.” The 2015 report concludes that “low-income households have not benefited at all from income growth.”

Another report by Knight Frank, looks at those with wealth exceeding $30 million. The report notes that in 2014 these 172,850 ultra-high-net-worth individuals increased their collective wealth by $700 billion. Their total wealth now rests at $20.8 trillion.

The report also draws attention to the disconnection between the rich and the actual economy. It states that the growth of this ultra-wealthy population “came despite weaker-than-anticipated global economic growth. During 2014 the IMF was forced to downgrade its forecast increase for world output from 3.7 percent to 3.3 percent.”